asset_get_host

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the action ('Get') and resource, but does not disclose behavior such as whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the host does not exist, or the structure of the returned details.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is almost too terse and lacks supporting context, but it is not verbose or redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequately clear about the core function, but it stays minimal. It doesn't explain what 'full details' includes or provide context on using this tool in a workflow with sibling tools like asset_search.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'host_ip'. The description merely says 'a specific host', adding minimal meaning beyond the parameter name itself. It does not specify format, examples, or potential constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full details for a specific host'), clearly indicating the tool retrieves detailed information for one host. This distinguishes it from siblings like asset_list_hosts (list) and asset_search (search).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when a specific host IP is known, but it does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives like asset_search or asset_list_hosts. There is no direct guidance on when to use this tool instead of others.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.